tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News October 18, 2009 6:00pm-7:00pm EDT
>> i'm chris wallace. this is "fox news sunday." >> the battle over healthcare reform intensifies. what will a final plan include and who will have to pay for it? we'll ask three senators at the center of the debate. kent conrad, democratic chair of the budget committee. john thune, head of the republican policy committee. and arlen specter, a recent democratic convert, who says there must be a public option. then the obama white house targets fox news. will the new strategy work? we'll ask karl row, former top advisor to president bush.
also is the president leaning toward sending more troops to afghanistan. we'll ask our sunday regulars. and our power player of the week has pro football players thinking pink. all right now on "fox news sunday." hello again from fox news in washington. after months of public debate, the battle over healthcare reform has gone behind closed doors. white house officials are meeting privately with senate leaders, democrats only, to merge two very different committee bills before bringing a compromise to the floor. joining us now to talk about what they would support are democratic senators kent conrad and arlen specter, who are in their home states, and republican senator john thune, who joins us here in studio. senators, let's start with the public option.
senator conrad, you've been an outspoken opponent of the idea of a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers. will you vote for a democratic plan, a final democratic plan, that includes a public option? >> well, it's probably not wise for me to negotiate in public, chris, but let me say this -- i will not support any public option tied to medicare levels of reimbursement. my state has the second to lowest level of medicare reimbursement in the country. i will not support that. i have proposed not-for-profit insurance competitors to the for a profit insurance industry in the form of cooperatives that are run by their membership, not run by the government. that is included in the finance committee bill. there are a series of compromises being suggested, including allowing states to opt in or opt out. and of course olympia snow has
proposed a triggered mechanism so if the other reforms in the bill aren't as successful as we hope, tha a public option woulde triggered down the line, but not one -- i want to emphasize this again -- not tied to levels of medicare reimbursement. that's unacceptable and could not get the votes. >> but just to button this up real quickly, you are suggesting that you could accept some of those compromises? >> i could accept something that is number one cannot be tied to medicare levels of reimbursement. the plan i proposed is what i favor. >> senator specter, you, on the other hand, are a strong supporter of the public option. could you support a final democratic plan that does not include a public option? >> i'm not prepared to recede at all. i think the public option is gaining momentum. we had a very forceful speech by
president obama yesterday on his saturday talk show, emphasizing the importance of the robust public option to hold down the profits and bonuses. i'm not going to step back a bit. i'm going to continue to fight for the robust public option. when i listened to what my friend kent conrad said, those conditions which he articulated at the very end i think could be consistent with a robust public option. >> you're talking about senator specter, either the trigger a couple of years down the line if the private health insurance companies don't provide affordable options or the idea of state options? you're saying those would be possible compromises you could support? >> no, no, i'm not saying that at all. when senator conrad says he doesn't want a plan tied to medicare reimbursements, you don't have to have a public option tied to medicare reimbursements, so when he's looking for conditions to protect his state, and i respect
that, that's what i do for pennsylvania, fight for my state, i think that that would be consistent with a public option. >> all right. now, i'm glad we clarified that. senator thune, let me bring you in. you're against any government-run health insurance plan to compete against the private insurers. how many republicans, including -- not that you speak for them, but you do talk to them, senators snow and collins of maine -- how many republican votes do you think there are for a public option? >> it's speculative to say exactly, but we know that olympia snow did vote for the bill had with it left the finance committee. she has sponsored a public option with a trigger, but i think that republicans for the most part in the senate, at least, chris, and i would think for the most part in the house, i'm not sure it's unanimous in the house, but it's very close, reject the idea of government-run healthcare. i think the american people have turned a thumbs-down on government-run healthcare. i think this is a very heavy lift to try to get this through the senate and/or the house. but they want to do it.
i think the democrats clearly want the public option. they want to call it something else. they want to label it, call it a trigger, a state option or co-op, but it's still a government plan. and as far as we're concerned -- as far as we're concerned, that's not something that the american people want to see happen. where it's been tried, it hasn't worked. if you look at other countries around the world, frankly for that matter a lot of the states that have tried to implement some sort of government-run health insurance plan, it's been a disaster. you can look at some examples of that here in our country. >> senator conrad? >> let me just say, if i can, on the question of cooperatives, cooperatives, as senator thune knows are not government run. cooperatives are run by their membership. the model that has worked in other parts of the world is a model, in some ways like our own, employer-based coverage with employees putting in, employers putting in, the government putting in for those that otherwise can't afford it, but not-for-profit insurance meadearys. that model has been very
successful in germany, in france, in -- >> let me interrupt, senator conrad, because the cbo, the nonpartisan congressional budget office was asked to score the idea of these cooperatives. they said they'd have no effect at all because they wouldn't get any market share. >> ahh. the best actuaries in the country have told us that the co-ops as we have designed them in the bill out of the finance committee would get 12 million members, be the third largest insurer in the country. look, cbo has to score based on what is past. what the best actuaries in the country have told us, when you have a reformed insurance market, 30 million new entrants, and when you have co-ops structured as we have in the finance committee bill, that they would be a effective competitor. again, if you look around the world, look at these other countries that have not-for-profit insurance intermediaries that compete with
for profit insurance. they've produced the best results. universal coverage, costs 1/2 of ours, and healthcare outcomes at least equal to ours, and on many metrics better than ours. if we want a reality test, i think we can look around the world and see systems that do work. >> senator specter, the other big issue is how we're going to pay for this. a number of critics say that all the democratic plans hide the real cost of healthcare reform. they point to a couple of things, that the plans would start raising taxes and fees in 2011, but the real programs wouldn't start till 2015, so you're raising money for 10 years, but you don't have the programs for the whole first 10 years. the other thing is that you call, the democratic plans call, for hundreds of billions of dollars in medicare cuts and a lot of people doubt that this congress or any congress, will have the will to impose those. aren't these ways to dodge what the real cost of healthcare reform is? >> the republican objections are
wrong. president obama has pledged not to sign a bill that adds to the deficit at all. there are many savings. for example, the annual exams will cut down on chronic ailments, which are so debilitating and expensive. we're going to have some tough criminal penalties so people who -- >> but senator, could you answer my question? >> well, i can if you give me a little time to do so, chris. i'm answering your question, that a plan will not -- will pay for itself, which is the obama contention. let me tell you why, if i can finish an answer just a little here. one way is the annual exams will cut down tremendous costs, catching of breast cancer, for example, as an early stage. second, lifestyle changes. smoking and checking your cholesterol. third, advance directives. fourth, criminal penalties to put medicare fraud, medicaid fraud in jail so that there are specific savings, which can
be -- listen, on the republican side, it is no, no, no, a party of obstructionism. this is no longer the party of john heinz and others. you have responsible republicans who had been in the senate, like howard baker and bob dole and bill frist who say republicans ought to cooperate. well, they're not cooperating. bob dole reportedly wouldn't even return a telephone call from a republican leader who wanted him -- who wanted him to back off. take a look at the absence of any republican plan. >> senator thune, let me bring you into this, since senator specter is going after his former party, of which you're still a member. there is a price tag for doing nothing. let me put that up on the screen. these are figures from your home state of south dakota. 13.5% of adults under 65 are uninsured. 33% of insured families spend more than 10% of their pretax
income on healthcare compared to 25% of families nationwide. i know republicans have their own ideas, but aren't you at this point -- doesn't senator specter have a point in this -- doesn't look at this point as if you'll end up blocking any change at all. >> well, the people in my state, if these bills go through, chris, are going to pay more. that's pretty clear. all the studies show the congressional budget office when asked whether this would lead to higher insurance premiums for people said roughly dollar for dollar, based on what the tax increases in their bill are going to be. the one thing that's clear about these bills, you've got higher taxes, medicare cuts, and higher premiums. i can't imagine trying to go back to south dakota, or senator conrad trying to go back to north dakota, telling the people in our states, that we've reformed healthcare, created a $2 trillion new entitlement that's going to include new taxes that you'll pay, that the middle class will be hit hard with the tax increases, we'll cut seniors' medicare.
oh, by the way, your premiums are going to go up, too. this doesn't do anything to reform health insurance. with respect to the public option, the government plan, co-ops have worked in south dakota. they're local co-ops. they allow people to buy things. they use group purchasing power. that's not where this bill is going to end up. kent conrad may like to see that option, others may like to see that option, but at the end of the day, this is a downpayment on, the gateway to a government-run plan, which is what most democrats in both the house and senate want to see. >> senator conrad -- >> chris, can i just respond? >> i want to ask you a question. you can respond when i ask the question. >> all right. >> what are the chances that congress is going to end up passing and the president will sign a major healthcare reform bill this year, and how are liberal democrats like arlen specter and moderate democrats like yourself going to resolve your differences? >> you know, it's the way it always happens. there is at some point a
principled compromise. i can tell you on the question of public option, it's not one tied to medicare levels of reimbursement that would work a hardship on senator thune's state, my state. but there are other things that senator thune said there that require a response. number one, cbo said this bill would reduce the deficit by $81 billion over the first 10 years, and hundreds of billions of dollars over the second 10 years. the questions of premiums, the cbo has said, they've only analyzed the administrative cost portion. 23% of every dollar goes to administrative costs. they say the legislation out of finance will reduce that amount by 4% to 5%. number two, john gruber, the noted health economist at m.i.t., has said the measure out of finance will reduce premiums for people at every age level and at every income level. with respect to taxes, the proposal out of finance committee provides $461 billion
of tax credits to help people, to assist people, buy health insurance they would not otherwise be able to afford. the one part of this that represents taxes -- >> senator conrad, we're you knorunningout of time. just very quickly. >> companies that offer cadillac plans, that was the proposal by john mccain running for president of the united states. john thune endorsed -- >> president obama opposed it, and said there had never been taxes on healthcare benefits. but anyway, i do want to talk about one other subject. we've got you here, senator thune. you of course are also a member of the senate armed services committee. there are reports that a u.n. commission is going to, in the next day or so, possibly today, is going to say that there was widespread vote fraud in afghanistan, and that there should be a runoff. should the u.s. insist that president karzai agree to a runoff before the president
sends any more troops to that country? >> i think it depends on the information that comes back from the commission. it looks like that's what they're going to recommend. i think this is where i would hope that, if the conclusion is drawn that there was fraud, that he's under 50%, that there wee by a runoff with his main rival, and perhaps they can come to a power-sharing agreement. either way, this needs to be an honest, fair election, or we won't have the confidence in the afghani people. >> the basic question is, does the political situation have to be resolved before the president makes a military decision to send more troops there? >> i don't think so. the fundamental decision with that is america's security interest. we'll be dealing with a government in afghanistan under any circumstances. what's important to me, most americans, that we have a strategy that can succeed. that's the decision the president needs to make. i hope he'll make it soon.
officials available to "fox news sunday" to talk about this or anything else. so what about their strategy? joining us are two men who have worked at the highest levels of politics. terry mcauliffe is former chair of the democratic party and one of bill clinton's closest friends. karl rove was a former advisor to former president george w. bush. welcome to fox news sunday. this was interview with president obama in the oval office in february, and some of anita dunn's remarks. >> i don't always get my most favorable coverage on fox, but that's how democracy is supposed to work. we're not all supposed to be in lockstep here. you've always been very gracious to me. >> the reality is that fox news almost always operates as the research arm or the communication arm as the republican party. >> karl, you're not in the meetings in this white house, but best guess, why the dramatic change in strategy? >> look, i think this white
house is dominated by chicago-style politics, so if you don't like the questions that are being asked by the major garrett or chris wallace, or others, you try to demonize fox news. if you don't like what the chamber of commerce is doing in opposing healthcare reform, you go out and start telling ceos to pull out of the chamber. if you don't like -- you know, if you don't like a wayward democrat voting against the stimulus bill, then you have the president of the united states and house democratic house caucus meeting say to him in public, don't think we aren't keeping score, buddy. this is demeaning to the white house and unnecessary. >> terry, why do you think -- i mean, those two clips are pretty dramatic. why do you think that fox news was "part of how democracy is supposed to work a few months ago and now we're the opposition. >> clearly president obama said he's been on the show, he'll come back on fox. he said that. anita said that later in the
interview. but there's some issues. we're talking about healthcare reform. people were annoyed that fox was the only broadcast station that did not broadcast his speech in front of the united states congress. you had had on a crazy show about how to learn to dance. that was a crazy decision, whoever made that decision. it's an important issue. if you look at the cryons on fox news, you have glenn beck, one of your big opinion leaders on fox, went on the morning show, a news show, and actually called president obama a racist. there's no place for that. so president obama's going to talk to all the networks, he's going to go out there. he loves competition, he loves to be engaged in the battle, but he has to deal with folks who will give him a fair hearing on healthcare. >> fox news carried the president's speech to congress, it was fox the entertainment channel. they were attacking not the fox the entertainment channel, but fox news. a lot of objectionable things said on cable cable channel, cnn, for every president.
that ought not to be the standard with which the white house determines whether or not a news channel is a white house enemy. that's over the top language. we heard before from richard nixon. that white house is prone to this kind of attitude attitude. it's demeaning to the presidency. he shouldn't personalize it like that, and allow his media to personalize it as well. >> what's outrageous, on your network, somebody calling president obama a racist. you've got to be kidding me. here you put on a show about teaching how to teach people how to dance -- >> wait a minute. that was not fox news. anita dunn was attacking fox news. >> on the main broadcast channel. >> let terry speak. >> the president went around, did all the different networks and cable shows, he didn't do fox news, because they should
have had a dance person on. the bottom line is if you watch fox, they have an opinions on it, president obama gets that, we understand that. he's going to come on fox. i think people are probably overstating this, but there are instances where fox has gone over the top, and that's what i find very offensive. >> you know, terry, you did not always have such a negative opinion of fox news. in fact, last year, during the campaign, you were complaining about all the other broadcast networks in the tank to fox -- or to obama rather over your candidate hillary clinton. i want to play a clip of what you said on the night of the pennsylvania primary. >> sure, let's do it. yeah. >> here it is. >> let me congratulate fox, because you were the first ones to call for hillary clinton. fair and balanced fox. you beat them all. >> so question, is the definition of a fair and balanced news organization one whose stories you like? >> well, sure enough, they were supporting my candidate that night, you bet.
whoever's helping me at the time, i love them, but i've had many statements about fox. listen, i believe that fox news is an appendage of the republican party. that's fine. >> why were we fair and balanced in the pennsylvania primary? >> because you called it for hillary. >> no. that wasn't the point. you said you thought we were giving a fairer shake to hillary clinton than other networks. >> i always say fair and balanced. we shouldn't debate fox. i love coming out, because there are people who watch who are independents, but it's no question you watch the show, it's part of the republican national committee. i've said it for years. that's fair. i enjoy coming on, getting my point out. i grew up as a boxer, i love a good night. fight. i love coming on with you and karl. >> you shouldn't denigrate nbc for having -- for having liberal
opinion programs for their -- there's a difference between opinion and news. and fox does a good job on the news side. again, i love it. fox news is being attacked for supposedly not fox broadcast running the speech. why don't we say we're attacking fox broadcast rather than fox news. let's not kid ourselves. this is the white house engaging in their own version of the media hate list, and it's undignified for the president of the united states to do. >> if yo let's talk about anita, the communication director, leading this fight. she criticized "fox news sunday" last week for fact checking an administration official. they didn't say that our fact checking was wrong, just said that we had dared to fact check. let's fact check anita dunn, because last sunday she said that fox ignores republican scandals, and she specifically mentioned the scandal rohlfing nevada senator john enson. i want to show you what she
said^, and then a question that i asked a top republican official in july. here it is. >> okay. >> did you see coverage of that on fox news? i'm not talking glenn beck, not talking sean, the factor, i'm talking about fox news. >> you've got republican leaders, like governor mark sanford of south carolina, or nevada senator enson admitting to extramarital affairs, staying in office, questionable use of either private funds or state money in the case of sanford, doesn't the gop with all of its talk with family values risk looking like a bunch of hypocrites? terry, a number of fox shows have run -- fox news shows -- have run stories about senator enson. anita dunn's facts were plain wrong. >> i can't speak to senator enson. i think the broader point, and i talked to the white house before i came on the show to find out what happened, they spoke to us and asked, how many times have you had an administration official on? secretary duckworth was on. a week later you fact-checked
her on the air. apparently that hasn't happened before, democrat or republican. i think it was the issue -- >> if you want to go into that, and i suspect you don't know the details of it, but the fact of the matter is that i've never had an administration official of any administration come on and so directly misrepresent the facts as secretary duckworth did. she said the law prevented her from taking off the your life, your choices counseling book to the va. there was no such law, and nobody at the white house has ever said there was. >> well, karl, we should fact-check everyone that's been on -- >> publicity stunt points. anita dunn is making the charges, because she's leaving the at the end of the year. had this gives them somebody a chance to turn on the grenades, the flame thrower, and be gone at the end of the year. the second thing is, it gets back to attitude. the white house attacked the insurance industry this week for issuing a report, having the tur middity to issue a report critical of healthcare reform and said we were blind sided. this is an administration that's getting arrogant and slippery in its dealings with people. if you dare to oppose them,
they're going to come hard at you and cut your legs off. that's exactly -- fox is not being -- you know, fox is asking tough questions. fox has got on the opinion side of it, tough critics of the administration. they're conflating the news side and opinion side in order to attack a media outlet. again, it's undignified for the president of the united states. >> karl talks about the -- the accounting firm has already come out, let's be fair, and said it was misleading. they were paid to do a tiny piece of it. don't mislead the american public on healthcare. >> please let's not get into the healthcare reform. they can have their own show. >> okay. >> let's talk about presidents. presidents, terry, you were very close, and are very close to bill clinton. he had plenty of problems with the press, especially during the lewinsky scandal. abc news was hitting him hard on the lewinsky scandal, and reportedly getting leaks from the special prosecutor's office, ken starr's office. did he ever consider going after and cutting off abc news? >> i don't think so. >> i mean, do you think this is a good strategy to individually
attack, call out and attack an individual news organization? and frankly to cut off doing any business with them? >> well, they're not doing any business. they know i'm on here today. >> with all respect, you're not an administration official. >> i spoke to the white house before i came on this morning. it was a different time back then, honestly, it was 24/7 with all the new media and all. it's a different world than it is today, chris. but the bottom line is anita dunn has said, said in that interview, that president obama is -- you know, he loves to engage in a good debate on the issues. he just wants a fair debate. he'll come on fox. he'll be on your show. >> we're not asking for the president to come on fox, but, for instance, there's a decision made on afghanistan, sending in more troops. there's a lot of people -- remember 61% of our audience according to the studies is middle of the road, liberal, self-described. a lot of people would like to hear from an administration official when they decide to hear thousands of more troops in harm's way. i'd like to ask some questions. as of now, they're going to cut us offer.
>> a good debate, having everybody on, that's why, don't agree with everything fox does, but at least you allow me to come on. >> hillary clinton aveiled herself of fox, and that's the time in which she began winning the primaries. in between march around the end of june, she got more votes and delegates than president obama did. why? because this network is watched by a wide variety of open-minded independents and democrats who want to hear the news. again, this gets back to the administration's making a mistake for itself, but more importantly it is demeaning the office of the president by taking the president and moving him from a person who ought to be talking to everybody, communicating through every available channel, saying if you oppose me, question me, if you're too tough on me, by, gosh, me and my people are not going to come on, we're going to penalize you. that's fundamentally wrong. >> karl and terry, thank you both. >> thank you. >> thanks for coming? >> democrats, big win, virginia and new jersey. >> no, no, no. i agree with mcauliffe said
deeds can't win, and -- >> i said deeds can win. >> you said he can't beat mcdonald. right there, mcauliffe says -- >> is this fox data? >> no. this is from the ""richmond times-dispatch" dispatch" in june and you said he's for higher taxes. you're right. >> let's go back to the primary. >> this is going to get out of hand. you didn't disappoint. >> 250 at my house today, we're kicking off tuesday, and president obama's coming in. >> thank you both. show this picture of them shaking hand. >> bye-bye. >> john core corzine wins by seven. >> thank you, gentlemen. up next, will election fraud in afghanistan change the president's change about how many troops to send there. our sunday group weighs in right after the break.
nobody that could credibly tell you that the government doesn't matter. >> that was white house press secretary robert gibbs emphasizing the importance of having a stable and yesterdaybly elected government -- credibly elected government in afghanistan. brit hume, and contributors of national public radio, bill crystal of the "weekly standard" and juan williams also from national public radio. so there are a number of reports that a u.n. commission will find that there was rampant fraud in the afghan election last august, and will call for a runoff between the two top contenders, hamid karzai and abdullah abdullah, but now karzai may stonewall and not allow a runoff. how does that factor into president obama's decision to send more american troops into that country? >> this election, with its
attendant fraud is the only justification for this soul searching going on right now. the president did after all announce a strategy after what he said was a comprehensive review back in march. he was unewildlifable about it. the president is having second thoughts. this election, which came as no price to anyone, following the habits and ways of the karzai government, was nonetheless a conspicuous event and gives the administration something to hang its hat on if it changes its mind about what to do in afghanistan. however, it's a little bogus. let's hope if a runoff is called for, it will be held, and a more legitimate result will be achieved, but let's not kid ourselves that we thought the karzai government was as pure as
the driven snow. >> certainly corruption existed before there election, but it's also true that in order to do counterinsurgency you have to have a credible reliable partner. right now they don't have one. hopefully they can get a runoff, relatively free of fraud. they'll get somebody. maybe a power-sharing agreement. i think the white house would love that between abdullah and karzai, if karzai would agree to that. the problem with the white house, the disputed election makes their job even more difficult. in other words, if you're going to do counter terrorism, which is what vice president biden and others think should be down, you still need a big element of counterinsurgency, still need american troops in and amongst the population to get you the kind of intelligence you need to carry out those targeted surgical strikes correctly. so i think the question before the white house is still the same, regardless of this election, which is how many troops do you need to be successful in afghanistan. >> bill, i want to go back to this question of the election, because you've got, it appears,
that the u.n. commission, independent commission, is going to say there was rampant fraud and there should be a runoff. the karzai people -- maybe it's posturing, negotiating, are saying, we're not sure we're going to have a runoff. they don't know if there's going to be an election. if there's an election, is it now or next spring because of the bad weather in afghanistan. isn't it awfully hard for the president to commit 10 or 20 or 40 or 60,000 more troops when he doesn't know what the government of afghanistan will look like, and whether it's legitimate? >> no. president obama committed troops to iraq with an government elected in an election that the sunnies had boycotted with questionable legitimacy. he announced the counterinsurgency in march. this happened in august. what were we doing all that time? richard holbrook, a wonderful gifted diplomat was put in charge of people went to holbrook, said, can't you make
sure it's conducted -- oh, no, we're staying out of it. they stray out of it. they let karzai run a pretty corrupt election. there's an afghan electoral commission looking at this. the country is allegedly so underdeveloped, they couldn't care less about these things, but if there was a failure, it was a failure in part by richard holbrook and the obama administration. because they failed in that, they're not going to send the reinforcements necessary for our military. it's ridiculous. the best way to have a decent, strong, political government there is to go and win the war. just as in iraq. they'll end up with a decent government if we send the troops and work diplomatically to try to push the forces there to compromise and to be more honest. >> wait a second. you're saying if we send the troops we'll end up with a good electoral result? >> no. we have much more ability to use our leverage to pressure the civilian government there to do the right thing. >> so in other words, the 68,000, however many american troops are on the ground now,
have not had that impact, because corruption pursued nonetheless, and the electoral commission you're referring to is run by karzai, that he controls them? he'll tell them what to do. the u.n.-backed group, the electoral complaints commission, a separate unit, and that's the one that people are counting on. apparently than from all indications, including indications from one of the ambassador, they've found sufficient fraud so that karzai won't be over the 50% and a runall will be required. so the question now is on a timetable in terms of president obama's decision-making, do you have this election now with harsh weather coming or do you wait until the spring? even inside the white house what they're saying is, this decision is not going to wait by the end of october. you need to wait for a runoff election in november. >> the question i have is, how all of this fuss over the election informs the decision about what to do in our national interest, in a place that president obama, corrupt government or not, said was
indispensable to our defense, a war of necessity and not of choice. whether the government is corrupt or not, the enemy will make a stronghold there, greatly ease the pressure that the pakistani ares imposing on the taliban -- >> can i answer that w question. >> let me finish my point. of course you can if chris recognizes you. >> go quickly. >> anyway, the point about is it the military necessity, of which the president spoke with some urgency, remains, while we talk about whether the election was up to our standards, which it certainly was not. >> well, the only thing i wanted to say, brit, if we have a partner not recognized by the afghan people as a legitimate government, if they feel the taliban is more legitimate than these people, that acts against our national interest. >> i agree. >> wait a second. >> on august 17th, on august 17th, president obama said it's a war of necessity. that was one week before this
election. it was totally clear there was going to be a lot of corruption and fraud. did president obama not know that was going to happen? if it's a war of necessity, it's a war of necessity. >> right. >> you buy a majority of the afghans like the taliban? >> you're acting as if it's a question of fighting the war in afghanistan and not fighting it. that's not thes case. the president has said over and over again week, not going withdraw one single troop. we have 68,000. the question on the table at the white house is how many more do you need? >> i understand that, but how does the election -- >> -- fight for a corrupt government. is that not a legitimate moral position for the white house? >> it's about how you fight. nobody's pulling out. >> so you want 68,000 troops to find, under resources, you don't like the election process. >> bill, it's about how we go about it in a smart way that limits our losses of american young men and women. do we want to put additional forces in to say that we're
going to conduct this counterinsurgency or do it in a such a way that we're really focusing on what's going on, specifically in pakistan, which is imploding at the moment -- >> less distinction between those two choices than you'd think. >> right, bathors but those aree choices. it's not pulling out. >> when we come back, the nfl facts, rush limbaugh's bid to be one of the buyers of a pro football team. we'll tackle that controversy and see how many football metaphors we can work into
country than for myself. >> chris: that was commissioner roger goodell on rush limbaugh on the failed bit to become a part owner of the rams and we're back with the panel. brit, why do you think limbaugh was dropped so quickly from the group trying to buy the rams, and, is he the victim here. >> this is a wonderful example of the way the issue of race is used manipulated and i would say in this case, abused in america. this country reached a consensus a long time ago about racism. it is intolerable and to call swain racist is one of the harshest things you could say about a person and it should be said only with the greatest care. and it is a charge that is flung about regularly, by the likes of jesse jackson and al sharpton and yes, here they were, banners flying in front of this parade hurling the charges at rush limbaugh based in considerable part on what turned out to be you be substantiated quotes attributed to him which he
denies and the nfl like -- >> no indication he said this. >> and deedee ninies it and it have been by jackson and sharpton but major media outlets participating in this as well and the nfl responded the way corporate entities do to situation, and just don't want to mess around with this issue. they have a lot of black players and players association was involved in this and they act understand the way, i would say, not a particularly admirable way, but, by bouncing him from the group of people that wanted to buy the team. >> chris: there are koents comments he made that attracted attention, in 12003 he said eagles quarterback donovan mcnabb was mediocre and overrated and added the media is desirous a black quarterback do well and '07 searched the nfl often looks like a game between the blood and the crips without any beens, there, i said it.
yuan, over the line. >> the donald mcnabb comments is something i've heard in the barbershop and people talking football, because in fact, the nfl stood sad to say had a pracf excluding black players and in terms of positions, people considered to be the thinking position like quarterback, there was' dearth of them and limbaugh said the press -- by the way, people said it about president obama, the press was getting on the bandwagon and wanted to break through the color barrier at' key position, quarterback and i thought he introduced race in to it, and i know the nfl doesn't want to talk about race and how many players, but, that was not a racist statement and you -- you could say it was racial but that wasn't the point and coming back to the other idea, that, somehow, now, he is too divisive. i think the history here is that people make all kinds of divisive and crazy statements who are owners of teams, nfl
teams and goodness gracious, the big issue is about excluding people and it was unfair to limbaugh and not to defend him, but people to be able to say things and he's a controversial guy who made him name by knock people and saying funny things about people and he does it about black people, too but it is legit as long as he doesn't cross the line and shouldn't have made him in eligible to be -- >> he wasn't an owner of a team and it was a business decision and it was a group trying to put in a fwoid buy a team and his business is to be controversial and makes a lot of money on it on the radio but he wasn't going to help them make money and get the team on their feet. that is what they decided. it is a private business decision. >> it is really a private business decision by the nfl. which made it clear, and, you know, let's talk about this, though. they are the king of sports. in the country. the nfl, we'd all agree.
do they want to take on somebody like rush limbaugh as a member of the club, given not only the controversial statements he's made in the past, but, controversial statements he could make in the future, the idea he's bad for business. >> i guess they didn't and they are a club and exempt from ain't trust laws. thank god, nbc and cbs and abc don't vote on whether fox news gets to exist, which is the bizarre situation you have, when the owners get together and decide whether someone has a franchise and i don't know, i wondered why major league sports has a cushy anti-trust situation. >> chris: health insurance industry as we now know it. >> no, you can start independent insurance companies and you know, if you want, as long as some suggest, if you want a controversial guy on your board the other insurance companies don't get to tell you -- i'll say quickly, it is broader and there is no sense -- i'm not one to complain, about liberal media bias and that stuff and i think conservatives are doing fine and limbaugh and fox news is doing fine but the degree there is an
attempt delegitimize popular conservatives who could have an effect politically and get them beyond the pale is shocking i would say and the conservative attempt by the left and the white house is part of it and some of the liberal medias part of it, and the liberal institutions are part of it -- >> wait a minute. >> the pressure on the nfl, is what they were doing and the nfl -- independently, black players -- >> you think jesse jackson and al sharpton, if they hadn't raised cane roger goodel would have said what he said, was it a great business decision? rush limbaugh has a vast audience. i think it is absolutely fair to suggest a huge number of the people, numbering in the millions, are nfl fans, why offend them. >> i think, i think a lot of this, coming back to the -- >> people will watch football or not watch football, they don't care about rush limbaugh. >> a lot of it is a business districts what is going on,
there is a players negotiation and goodell does not want it on this table and the director of the players association understood he could use race as a point of leverage against goodell and he backed up quickly and in that sense, let me come back to something else, mara said, oh, it is a business decision and people don't make divisive statements, i watch msnbc sometimes, and see their talk show hosts, mocking liberals and going off, keith olbermann. no, no, about politics right? conservatives are terrible and jerks and blah, blah, and he announces the game and he could be making decisive statements and cannot announce an nfl game, i don't see that. >> good point. good point. >> i don't watch him. i mean, i don't watch football, either, but i -- >> thank god most of businesses are -- why did it happen, it could happen to players under the union and all the nfl owners are in one clun and there is pressure to be put on them and thank god there is diversity in
terms of industries and businesses, and, people can be controversial and still find places where -- that are willing to have them. >> chris: thank you, panel, see you next week. and i was go to ask mara about donovan mcnabb. >> turned out to be a fine quarterback as i've read! >> chris: don't forget check out the latest edition of panel-plus, where our group continues the discussion on our web site, foxnewssunday.com shortly after the show ends. time for comments you posted to wallacewatch and had plenty to say about our guest, las vegas billionaire, steve wynn, for the first time ever, watching the sunday morning political shows, i cheered at my tv instead of throwing something at a and jimmie b., and a bunch of others had this suggestion, steve wynn for president! in 2012. please keep your comments coming, find us at foxnewssunday.com and later check out my wallace unplugged post-show comments. up next, our power player of the week.
message is from coast to coast. >> what is the message. >> early detection saves lives and take care of yourself. >> tanya is the wife of owner dan schneider. she has her own cause. she's the nfl program this month pushing breast cancer awareness. why is the nfl a good platform to reach women? >> snyder says the league hopes to educate men. in addition-- >> i think there are a lot of fanatical female fans and i run into them every day. >> the nfl is trying to build awareness, passing out information at stadiums and raising money. >> good afternoon, gentlemen. >> if you haven't noticed players are wearing pink on the field. >> how did players react when you said to them, put on pink gloves or bink shoes or bink arm bands? >> there aren't too many players that you talk to whose lives have in the been
touched, you know, by breast cancer. >> snyder got into the cause 11 years ago when her husband took over the team. she partnered with a sorority handing out pink ribbons before the game. >> my daughter that's 11 would chase anybody around that wasn't a male and she'd say real men wear pink. >> snyder's fight got personal last year when she was diagnosed with the disease. >> i'll never forget it. i felt like i was about 12 inches tall, helpless, and you know, am i going to be alive? >> snyder's treatment has gone well and her experience only reinforced her commitment. >> for such a private person is it hard to be upfront? >> yes, it is. this is not my comfort zone at all. this cause is-- gives me the reason to be here. >> these days snyder faces another challenge. the redskins aren't doing well, and some media and fans have decided who's
responsible. >> how do you feel when you hear your husk blamed for the problems with the team? >> well, you know, everything starts from the top down, i understand that. i mean, i hope and wish the best for the redskins and for the fans, you know, and certainly, he's a number one fan, so, for everybody, we want the redskins to do great. nobody likes to be booed and it makes me sad, you know, and i just-- i know we'll get it though, we'll get it. >> and maybe winning at football isn't a matter of life and death. when you're fighting something that is. >> i have two daughters and a son that are very afraid and for me to be an example to them and to now make a difference, now, if i possibly can. hopefully we'll save some lives. >> lovely woman with a good heart. so if you're watching pro football today. check out the pink on the field and remember what it's about. and that's it for today. have a great week